Over the past few weeks we have been reading and talking a lot about the phallocentric economy of representation that Irigaray associates not only with Freud, but with the very structure of the patriarchal society and culture in which we live.
I have no doubt that this structure of patriarchal authority plays itself out in specific ways in the classroom and in the very educational structure in which we are all, right now, participating.
So my question is: how does the use of blogging in this course undermine the phallocentric economy of authority and representation and how does it remain inscribed within it?
The blog is an interesting media in which to conduct a discussion of this sort because it simultaneously reinforces but also challenges the existing patriarchal structures.
The physical presence of the blog is anchored in the phallocentrism that some would argue is prevalent through much of society. We, as students, log on to the blog of you, the professor. You have a degree of authority over us even in this setting, as a result of your status as moderator/administrator of the blog. Even in this seemingly free-flowing stream of information, we are submitting to your expectations and requirements. You place a number on how frequently we are to post, and specify a general format we are to follow (one we have discussed as being deeply rooted in a male-dominated representational economy).
However, at the same time, the blog has a very equalizing force to it. It releases some of the authority that you, as an instructor, have over the conduct of the class and equally distributes it across a field of students. Males and females, seniors and freshmen, philosophy and microbiology majors all have the exact same abilities to influence the trajectory of the blog. This essentially removes some of the dichotomization that Irigaray so readily refutes. Further, in our posts, we are driving classroom discussion... regardless of whether it is within the bounds of that which you hoped to discuss.
I must wonder though if it is useful to consider this question. We can identify all the occurrences of phallocentrism that take place in the process of editing a blog, but just as with the codification of such values in legal and cultural settings, there is little that can be done to replace them. We cannot expect you to relinquish posting requirements or permit us to moderate our colleague's posts. It would be unheard of for you to throw open the syllabus to whichever way the wind blows on the blog. In this sense, I just don't see the point in highlighting those things that are unchangeable.
*I've decided to leave a comment on this post because I am attempting to meet the blog post requirement. As Dan previously stated concerning the phallocentric elements of the blog, "we are submitting to your expectations and requirements", we all are in fact blogging in hope of meeting these requirements and receiving a grade.
It is true that you have the authority over the class in an obvious phallocentric fashion because you are the professor. I cannot see how any educational institution could avoid employing the "phallocentric" structure in their classrooms. Curriculum must be dictated from somewhere and requirements and expectations must be set to encourage class participation and education.
However, I do believe the blogging in this course is able to undermine the phallocentric economy of representation as well. Although we are given blogging requirements, we all still maintain the ability to blog however we'd like and connect any material we'd like to the course content. Blogging presents a sort of freedom that allows us to truly say/type whatever we'd like. Because there is no prompt for each blog we write or a special style we must write in, we all are able to actively undermine the phallocentric economy of representation.
I appreciate the responses thus far and would like to think out loud a bit about the possibilities that might open themselves to us by certain technological innovations.
So, to Dan, let me wonder: what would a course look like and be like in which the students in dialogue with the professor perhaps via the use of a wiki or blog with multiple editors/administrators, decided together upon a course of study for a given semester? Together, based on mutual interests, they would develop a reading list, a set of criteria for evaluating their work together and a set of outcomes.
What if it was agreed upon that the students would evaluate each others work, with the faculty member included in the process but without the full weight of authority in the matter?
What would be lost on this model, what gained? How could this model be improved upon?